Those are my two favorite lines
from The Yogi Bear Show, a cartoon I watched when I was a kid. After
his reply to Boo Boo, Yogi looks self-conscious as he realizes what
he has just admitted about himself. I thought of that line when
I read of the recent Supreme Court decision in Holder v. Humanitarian
Law Project, and, in particular, a statement made by Justice John
Roberts
in his majority opinion. In that statement, Roberts revealed what is,
at worst, dishonesty and, at best, a mediocre understanding of
government.
Government has a lot to be modest about. So does Chief Justice
John Roberts.

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law
Project, the Humanitarian Law Project (HLP), a
non-governmental
organization (NGO) based in Los Angeles, sued to overturn part of the
2001 USA PATRIOT Act. The HLP objected to the particular section that
prohibits U.S. citizens from providing “training, expert advice, or
assistance” to groups that the U.S. government has designated as
terrorist
groups. The HLP had wanted to talk to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party
(PKK). Because those who violate this part of the law can receive
a prison sentence of up to 15 years, the people at the HLP,
understandably,
wanted to make sure that they wouldn’t violate the law by talking to
the PKK. What they
found out with the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision is that they would be
violating the law and, therefore, would be in danger of going to
prison.

And what did the HLP want to
talk to the PKK about? Perhaps how to build better bombs? Not quite. The HLP wanted
to give the PKK tools for solving their problems non-violently.
Specifically, the HLP wanted to advise the PKK on how to file human
rights complaints with the United Nations and how to conduct peace
negotiations
with the Turkish government. But the Supreme Court has now said
that even helping the PKK to use peaceful methods instead of violence
would be to give “material support” and, thus, violate the USA PATRIOT
Act.

This means that if I happened
to meet a terrorist, either here in the United States or elsewhere,
I would be in legal jeopardy if I told him that he should not be a
terrorist.
What this decision does, therefore, is give the U.S. government a
monopoly
on dealings with terrorist groups.

How did Justice Roberts justify
this decision? A pivotal part of his argument was the following:

“In this litigation, by
contrast,
Congress and the Executive are uniquely positioned to make principled
distinctions between activities that will further terrorist conduct
and undermine United States foreign policy, and those that will not.”
(From opinion by Justice John Roberts, Holder
vs. Humanitarian Law Project,
June 21, 2010, p. 30.)

Congress and the executive
branch are uniquely positioned to make such “principled
decisions”?
Are Roberts and I observing the same people? First, among the top five
characteristics for which Congress and the executive branches are known,
being principled is not on the list. And, in case Roberts has forgotten,
in order to make principled distinctions, you pretty much have to be
a principled person. But, second, whence came this incredible skill
that Congress supposedly has? We know that when they voted for
the USA PATRIOT Act, few, if any, of them had actually read it.
The simple fact of the matter is, as anyone who has had even a few
dealings
with representatives or senators knows, they have little expertise on
anything.

And why would they have such
expertise? They don’t get it from running in political campaigns,
from jumping from issue to issue the way virtually all of them do, or
from spending hundreds of hours a year dialing for dollars because
campaign
finance laws since 1974 have made it so hard for them to get support
from just a few high-contributing supporters. So, far from being
“uniquely positioned” to make fine distinctions, most of them are
not positioned at all.

If we take Roberts at face
value – that is, if we assume that he’s not lying – his statement shows
zero understanding of the mediocrity of the people in charge in
Washington.

The judge makes completely sense! From that premise, that the US, like the USSR or the fascist countries, has as it's raison d'être to be leading the people in the right direction. A truly remarkable philosophy, since it defines a created sort of living-dead being (the state) as more important than living humans. An elder concept of the state that was, at least in Europe, that it had to be legitimate to be accepted by the people. . But here you have the highest court upholding the administration's in inborn superiority . Some sort of a perverts racism! A concept from the beginning of the nineteenth century. And since the US always claimed victory, this exempts the elite from any sort of rethinking or development.

Things like water torture was used by US personal in the Philippines around 1900, and THAT is still your standard of public life, whenever somebody in power thinks it is needed, or just convenient for administrative purposes. So maybe the good judge would protect the citizens from worse alternatives, all of them also and always acceptable to some judge appointed by the political leaders themselves.

bogi666

Their is no profit in non violence for U.S. corporations. In Roberts court their has never been a decision against a corporations which by definition are amoral psychopath's now enshrined as persons by the SCOTUS.

Bruce Richardson

That Senators have "little expertise on anything" is right on! The reason most Members of Congress did not bother to read the Patriot Act is that they know they are above the law, immune from its ramifications. The law is only for us folks in the Lumpenprolitariat.

oneselbow

John "Balls and Strikes" Roberts is one of those people who can cite reams of details but who has no deeper understanding.

So, in the spirit of our Chief Umpire, I'd like to say GOOD CALL, Mr. Henderson.

Just a general comment: I am glad to see an article that focuses on the judiciary and the role it has played in our gradual slide into a police state. One of the reasons the judicial branch was created was to protect the citizenry from the over reach of the executive and legislative branches of government, which the founding fathers knew would happen. They, the judiciary, are a dismal failure and this article illustrates this in a most insightful way.

E. A. Costa

"One of the reasons the judicial branch was created was to protect the citizenry from the over reach of the executive and legislative branches of government…"

There is not one word in the US Constitution about the US Supreme Court–or indeed the judiciary in general–having ANY ROLE at all, whether as interpreter or final authority of the Constitution itself or of "Constitutional law".

None. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

E. A. Costa

Though many have acknowledged this no one that one has seen has bothered to try to explain it.

You don't seriously think the absence was an "oversight", do you?

Nor do most Americans, and especially those legally trained, any longer have the intellectual and historical wherewithal to analyze the absence plausibly, since they operate mainly by retrojection.

One thing is certain–the so-called "judicial branch" was not part of some tripartite design of executive, legislative, judicial.

I didn't refute your original response and you are correct about the Constitution, and I was wrong. Okay, that is settled.

Marbury vs. Madison in 1803, maybe you are familiar with it already. Get my drift….?

Back to my response, your posting style is indeed droll. I should have made my intent more clear. Try posting with fellow posters on an equal level instead of always posting down to them. Maybe you don't care, though.

E. A. Costa

"Aurea mediocritas" is, in English and especially American English, one of the falsest of false friends.

Jon

"The mediocrity of the people in charge in Washington", can also include most of the people on SCOTUS.

E. A. Costa

"Mediocre" is outrageous flattery. Imbecilic–and that includes both Democrat and Republicans–is closer to the mark.

At this point a magic eight ball has a better track record.

In fact, there's a suggestion for a Third Party–run a magic eight ball.

He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor, the Jim Lehrer
Newshour, CNN, and C-SPAN. He has had over 100 articles published
in Fortune, the Wall Street Journal, Red Herring, Barron’s,
National Review, Reason, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today,
and the Christian Science Monitor. He has also testified
before the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Armed Services
Committee, and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
Visit his Web site.